Inching closer to The Hobbit film

[davem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7044649.stm .

"I would be disappointed if they didn't want to have the original Gandalf."

[Tuor in Gondolin]

A plus to PJ not being the dirctor could be
reprising a role as Saruman, since I believe
Christopher Lee wasn't happy with the handling of
Saruman's exit from movie LOTR and nonappearance
in movie ROTK.

In a movie Hobbit you could have a scene with the White Council
driving Sauron from Dol Guldur, although, as
JRRT realized, a weak point in LOTR is how to
handle Saruman becoming evil (going over to the
Dark Side ) without the apparently astute and
insightful Istari and elves realizing it.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Oh, no. No no no no no. Just film the book Tolkien wrote, dammit, and no bloody Hollywood 'inventions!'

[Sauron the White]

Shoot the film with the book as the script?

[Essex]

but the White Council meetings and attack on Dol Guldur will bridge the gap between the two books nicley. I would love to see this on screen - especially the scene (mentioned in Unfinishd tales I think) where Gandalf puffs out the giant Smoke Ring infornt of Saruman and goes to grab it before it vanishes. Now that would be good!

PS - how are they going to tackle the 'issue' of having talking birds? ignore it as they did in LOTR? not only the Eagles but the bird who helps Bilbo find the secret doorway and tells bard where to shoot the Dragon?

[Tuor in Gondolin]

I tend to see Beorn's animals handled by them walking
normal animal style, with perhaps trays, cups etc. taken fom
the backs of some by the mouths of others (easily handled
elegantly by sgi)- but with no talking. Thorin's bird mesenger
could be shown listening and then carry written messages
between the Iron Mountains and Erebor.

And, yes, it might be quite interesting to see Saruman's
struggle for self-control (perhaps even show the beginning
of his pipe-weed addiction ).

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I again beg to differ

The very pattern of 'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid' 'rising up' seems positive concept to me. In 'real life' much more likely story would be the kid remaining isolated and self-absorbed, or becoming outwardly aggressive and bullyuing whilst inwardly remaning self-absorbed and weak. 'Only you can save mankind' is better message to plant for me than 'you are bratty and so will remain, noone understands what it is that makes you be, therefore, option A: whine your life away or option B: go to the boxing club to build up some muscle power and then show them all!

Yes and no. I don't agree with Sauron the White that the "kid saves the world" scenario is necessarily a bad thing. Recently a friend and I were talking about the dreary "young adult" novels we had to face (and study in school) in the late 80s and early 90s, in which the protagonist is typically a helpless victim. We both hated them, found them depressing and suspect they put a lot of kids of our generation off reading. (Teachers loved 'em, though...)

However, why does it have to be a

'bratty, isolated, totally self-absorbed kid'?

Why on Earth should they be the only type of kid catered for? I think those sort of stories work much better if the main character is likeable and relatively mature. Having a self-centred brat rewarded for his or her self-centred brat-hood is not, in my view, a good thing.